The present study offered a perspective on how the teacher managed to orchestrate longitudinal knowledge creation process interlinking the several aspects of the trajectory together. When proceeding in the 21st century, we need to renew our comprehension of teaching, learning, and developing knowledge.
More studies are needed that would bring understanding from the methods of supporting knowledge creation and creating novelty, innovation, and associated personal and social competences. However, the development of the schools and classroom practices that would follow knowledge creation need support from the several levels along with good teacher know-how. The day-to-day collaboration and classroom operations, productive collaboration between teachers and schools, and the governmental and institutional decisions should be supportive in order to create opportunities for scaling up the practices of knowledge creating classrooms (Chan, 2011).
At present, in addition to curricular reform, the schools are experiencing simultaneous challenging reform efforts that take time and govern the teachers’
work. It would be essential to allocate school resources so that the collegial collaboration between teachers in terms of collective planning is allocated enough time, and the practitioners should have an opportunity to create a professional learning community with an innovative spirit, common pedagogic grounds and mutual trust (Hämäläinen & Vähäsantanen, 2011). Otherwise, the tightening time constraints may restrict professional interests, creativity and work satisfaction that are related to opportunities to develop teaching or new work methods (Eteläpelto, Hökkä, Paloniemi, & Vähäsantanen, 2014;
Hämäläinen & Vähäsantanen, 2011). If we want to create opportunities for changing school learning, we should organize the time needed for designing teaching, collaborative ideation and reflection on action between teachers. The teachers participating in developmental projects the aim of which is to create
new practices or starts should be supported by reducing work hours, not only by covering the occasional costs of substitute teachers. The resources allocated should not concern only the energetic expert teachers but also the teachers who have been too busy to try out new approaches or have been working alone.
While progress goes on, we still need ideas about how to scale up the good practices and innovations created and sustain the change (Bielaczyc, 2013;
Chan, 2011; Sawyer, 2015). There have been discussions about how research should play a more profound role in improving educational practice in classroom, but researcher-designed interventions tend not to reach stable changes or effects in practice if the researchers’ and teachers’ aims are discordant (Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Juuti & Lavonen, 2006; Pernaa & Aksela, 2013). The research-practice partnership seems to offer promising tools and results for overcoming the previous challenge (Coburn & Penuel, 2016). This mutual partnership when developing the interventions in the contextual setting have shown positive outcomes when aiming to change people’s thinking, activity and practices (Coburn & Penuel, 2016). The joint transformative educational efforts should be directed toward challenges that improve the quality of education, foster the flourishing of learning, teaching and undertaking research, and provide shareable outcomes.
The investigation in the present study is a precursor to the following next generation of studies, in which the integrated design and making activities have been providing opportunities to bring together STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) subjects and the elements of maker-culture (see Andersson, 2012; Kangas & Hakkarainen, 2016; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2017, 2019) in Finnish schools (Riikonen, Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, & Hakkarainen, 2018). The interventions have been parts of the Laboratory of Inquiry, Design, Teaching, and Co-Regulation (Co4-Lab) and Growing Mind projects, the aim of which was to engage students in collaborative efforts to invent complex tangible or intangible artifacts in ten schools and six day-care centers (Riikonen et al., 2018; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2019). In each school, these co-invention processes rely on several collaborating teachers that jointly pursue pedagogic innovations supported by a research-practice partnership that assists in coordinating the processes and sharing expertise across schools and providing appropriate academic and professional facilitation and guidance during the process. One aim has been in basing the practices developed in collaboration in the local context with the help of the participating teacher network. The teachers are the ones who design what and how to do, and the priority is set on solving real-life problems and supporting the development of teachers’ transformative agency. The theoretical ideas, pedagogical models or technological learning environments need to be balanced according the contextual setting.
Severe emphasis has also been placed on digital strategies in order to support the change from teacher-centered approaches to learner-centered ones. However, implementation of digital tools should not focus only on technology, but on practices to make the technology and tools part of the innovative learning processes. The technology support used in the present intervention was extremely valuable for enabling the collaboration and support of object-oriented processes between the participants. However, in the present time perspective, the areas of computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) are being broadened with participation in communities where the contributors engage in collaborative knowledge construction and in designing and adapting technologies to their needs (Fischer, 2011). These rapidly evolving socio-technical environments along with the other forms of social media create new opportunities to taking part in the larger knowledge creating world (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2016). On the other hand, the use of generic social media also create tension with CSCL’s traditional focus on specialized applications for collaboration (Stahl &
Hakkarainen, in press). Stahl and Hakkarainen (in press) ponder how generic social media promote the exchange of personal opinions rather than supporting intersubjective processes of knowledge building in domains like argumentation, sciences and mathematics. The new applications leave more space for the teacher’s agency, but as Scardamalia and Bereiter (2014) underlined, any communication technology may be a medium for community knowledge building if it allows ideas to be represented and preserved in a comprehensible form to others and allows for revision and discussion. However, the challenge in education is getting students and teachers up to that level. The knowledge-creation research field does well in mapping the solutions developed for supporting the collaborative object-oriented processes within the changing technologies.
Finally, we need to be inspired and offer resources for trying new ideas and develop our schools so they can respond better to the surrounding changing society and for the future needs of learning and development. The change toward principle-based knowledge creating classrooms needs the teachers with deep understanding of principles of knowledge creation and abilities to apply technological support or tools for realizing them. It also requires fluent expertise from the teacher, but most importantly, the contextual understanding of the students as individuals and community. Essential in the success of collective work within a classroom community is to sustain practices, routines and specification of social and technical elements that support and channel the students’ activities in a way that elicits participation in collective efforts (Hakkarainen, 2009). However, the most crucial element is to support the students’ belief in their own strengths and support the feeling of belonging and being an important part of the community. The teachers are at the heart of
creating this culture and orchestrating the interplay between different activities and social processes in the changing learning situations.
8 References
Agar, M. (2006). An ethnography by any other name …. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4), 1-24.
Ananiadou, K. & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154.
Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The new industrial revolution. New York: Crown Business.
Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M. & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11-13.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A., (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5-11.
Angelillo, C., Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (2007). Examining shared endeavors by abstracting video coding schemes: With fidelity to cases. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 189-206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ash, D. (2007). Using video data to capture discontinuous science meaning in nonschool settings. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 207-226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (2001).
Handbook of Ethnography. London: Sage.
Baird, D. (2004). Thing knowledge: A philosophy of scientific instruments.
Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Barab, S. A. (2006). Design-based research. A methodological toolkit for the learning scientist. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 153–169). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barrel, B., (1991). Classroom artistry. The educational Forum, 55, 333-342.
Barron, B., & Engle, R. (2007). Analyzing data derived from video records. In S.
Derry (Ed.), Video research in education. Recommendations from an expert panel (pp. 24-33). Data research and development center.
Retrieved from http://drdc.uchicago.edu/what/video-research-guidelines.pdf#page=1&view=fitV,0
Beghetto, R., & Kaufman, J. (2011). Teaching for creativity with disciplined improvisation. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 94-111). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 12, 173-190.
Bell, P., Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2004). Design-based research. In M. C.
Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 73-88). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive Studies, Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(3), 321-327.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. de Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van
Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments. Unraveling basic components and dimensions (pp. 73-78). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Berliner, D., (2004). Expert teachers: their characteristics, development and accomplishments. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 24(3), 200–212.
Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301-329. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1503_1
Bielaczyc, K. (2013). Informing design research: Learning from teachers' designs of social infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258-311. doi:10.1080/10508406.2012.691925
Biesta, G. J. J & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A.
(1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398.
Bourdieu, P. (1972/1977) Outline of a theory of practice. New York: Press syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Originally published as Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique (Genève: Droz, 1972).
Borko, H. & Putnam, R. (1998). Professional development and reform-based teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 1—3.
Bransford, J., Stevens, R., Schwartz, D., Meltzoff, A., Pea, R., & Roschelle, J.
(2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy.
In Alexander, P. & Winne, P. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 209–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings.
10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning:
New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A. & Campione, J.
(1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In. G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188-228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18, 32-42.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Burnard, P. (2011). Creativity, pedagogic partnerships, and the improvisatory space of teaching. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 51-72). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). The classroom discourse – The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann: Portsmouth.
Chan, C. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 147-186.
doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9121-0
Chan, C., & van Aalst, J. (2018). Knowledge building theory, design, and analysis. In F. Fischer, C. Hmelo-Silver, S. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Intenational handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 295-307).
New York: Routledge.
Chen, B. & Hong, H. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations:
Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266-288. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1175306
Chernobilsky, E., Nagarajan, A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2005). Problem-based learning online: Multiple perspectives on collaborative knowledge construction. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers & T. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL2005) (pp. 52-63). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H. (2011). Theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, and trends in the study of expertise. In Y. Li & G. Keiser (Eds.), Expertise in mathematical instruction: An international perspective (pp.17-39).
Boston, Ma: Springer.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.
Questions: Case Studies in Science Classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284. doi:10.1080/10508400903530036
Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and institutional context. In S. Carver, & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years of progress (pp. 229-272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
Coburn, C. & Penuel, W. (2016). Research-practice partnership in education:
Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48-54.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. New York:
Plenum Press.
Cole, M. (2010). What’s culture got to do with it?: Educational research as a necessarily interdisciplinary enterprise. Educational Researcher, 39(6), 461-470. doi:10.3102/0013189X10380247
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Instructional Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
Cress, U., & Kimberly, J. (2018). Collective knowledge construction. In F.
Fischer, C. Hmelo-Silver, S. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Intenational handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 137-146). New York: Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Research on teaching and teacher education and its influences on policy and practice. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 83–91. doi: 10.3102/0013189X16639597
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (2003). Thinking together: A programme of activities for developing speaking, listening and thinking skills for children aged 8-11. Birmingham: Imaginative Minds.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J., Sherin, M., & Sherin, B. (2010).
Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on
Sciences, 19(1), 3–53.
DeZutter, S. (2011). Professional improvisation and teacher education. In R. K.
Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 27-50). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers &
Education, 69, 485-492. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.013 Dillenbourg, P. (2015). Orchestration Graphs: Modeling scalable education.
Lausanne: EPFL Press.
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to
orchestration. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder &
S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning. principles and products (pp. 3-19). Dordrecht: Springer.
Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(1), 1-13. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x Dimitriadis, Y., Prieto, L. P. & Asensio-Pérez, J. I. (2013). The role of design and
enactment patterns in orchestration: Helping to integrate technology in blended classroom ecosystems. Computers & Education, 69, 496-499.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.004
Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine. The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Edelson, D. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design.
The Journal of the Instructional Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
Eisner, E., (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions.
Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598-628.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Suntio, A. (2002). Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century. Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 211-224). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Ericksson, F. (2006). Definition and Analysis of Data from Videotape: Some Research Procedures and Their Rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, &
P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 177-191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
examples from elementary school classrooms. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 113-132). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eteläpelto, A. (2017). Emerging conceptualisations on professional agency and learning. In M. Goller, & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 183-201). Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60943-0_10 Eteläpelto, A., Hökkä, P., Paloniemi, S. & Vähäsantanen, K. (2014).
Ammatillisen toimijuuden ja työssä oppimisen vahvistaminen:
Hankkeen taustaa ja lähtökohtia. In P. Hökkä, S. Paloniemi, K.
Vähäsantanen, S. Herranen, M. Manninen, & A. Eteläpelto (Eds.), Ammatillisen toimijuuden ja työssä oppimisen vahvistaminen - Luovia voimavaroja työhön! (pp. 17-31). Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä printing house.
Fendler, L. (2003). Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors: Historical influences and political reverberations. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 16-25.
Fischer, G. (2011). Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of
participation. interactions, 18(3), 42-53. doi:10.1145/1962438.1962450 Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstanding about case-study research. In C.
Seale., G. Gobo, J.F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 219-245). London: Sage.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R.
(2004). Design‐based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110. doi:10.1002/tea.20040
Friese, S. (2012). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti. London: SAGE.
Gog, T., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Advances in research on worked examples, animations, and cognitive load measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 375-378.
doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9145-4
Goldman, R., Ericksson, F., Lemke, J., & Derry, S. (2007). Selection in video. In S. Derry (Ed.), Video research in education. Recommendations from an expert panel. Data research and development center (pp. 15-23).
Retrieved from http://drdc.uchicago.edu/what/video-research-guidelines.pdf#page=1&view=fitV,0
Greiffenhagen, C. (2012). Making rounds: The routine work of the teacher during collaborative learning with computers. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(1), 11-42.
doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9134-8
Green, J., Skukauskaite, A., Dixon, C., & Cordova, R. (2007). Epistemological issues in the analysis of video records: Interactional ethnography as a logic of inquiry. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Denny (Eds.),
LEA.
Greeno, J. G. (1997). Theories and practices of thinking and learning to think.
American Journal of Education, 106(1), 85-126.
Gresalfi, M. S. (2009). Taking up opportunities to learn: Constructing dispositions in mathematics classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 327-369. doi:10.1080/10508400903013470
Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088.
Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Pursuit of explanation within a computer-supported classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 979-996.
Hakkarainen, K. (2009a). Three generations of technology-enhanced learning.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 879–888.
Hakkarainen, K. (2009b). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 213–231.
Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning communities in the classroom. In K. Littleton, C. Wood & J. Kleine Staarman (Eds.), International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 177–225). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K., & Lipponen, L. (1999). Tutkiva oppiminen:
Älykkään toiminnan rajat ja niiden ylittäminen [Progressive inquiry:
Overcoming constraints of human intelligent activity]. Porvoo: WSOY.
Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K., & Lipponen, L. (2004). Tutkiva oppiminen. Järki, tunteet ja kulttuuri oppimisen sytyttäjinä [Progressive inquiry: How reason, emotion, and culture lighten up learning]. Helsinki: WSOY.
Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). Interrogative model of inquiry and computer supported collaborative learning. Science & Education, 11(1), 25–43.
Hall, R. (2007). Strategies for video recording: Fast, cheap, and (mostly) in control. In S. Derry (Ed.), Video research in education.
Recommendations from an expert panel (pp. 4-14). Data research and development center. Retrieved from
http://drdc.uchicago.edu/what/video-research-guidelines.pdf#page=1&view=fitV,0
Hargreaves, A. & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. London: Corvin.
Hedegaard, M., & Chaiklin, S. (2005). Radical-local teaching and learning.
Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
Hintikka selected papers, Vol. 5). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2003). Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction:
Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers &
Education, 41(4), 397–420.
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2011). Editor's note. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 339-341, doi: 10.1080/10508406.2011.595480
Hmelo-Silver, C., Chernobilsky, E., & Jordan, R. (2008). Understanding collaborative learning processes in new learning environments.
Instructional Science, 36(5–6), 409–430.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Chernobilsky, E., & Nagarajan, A. (2009a). Two sides of the coin: Multiple perspectives on collaborative knowledge construction in online problem-based learning. In K. Kumpulainen, C. E. Hmelo-Silver
& M. César (Eds.), Investigating classroom interaction: Methodologies in action (pp. 73-98). Rotterdam: Sense.
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to
Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to